Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_04.08.2016Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas April 08, 2016 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information: TTY users/ route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members: John Pettitt — Chair, John Hesser — Vice Chair, Ron Bindas — Secretary, Peter Behrman, Donna Courtney Board Members Absent: Doug Noble, Troy Hellman, Scott Rankin, Steve Johnston Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Bill Dryden, Russ Volk, Nat Waggoner, Trina Bickford, Tristan Whitmire Others Present: John Milford, Carl Norris, Dennis Hegebarth, Terry Reed — ACC, Tom Crawford — GTEC, Ken Mabe — Tx Aviation Partners/GTU jet, Trae Sutton — KPA Engineering, Colin McGahey — Poznecki Camarillo, Inc. Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. John Pettitt called the Regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Friday, April 8,216 at 10:00 AM. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B. Introduction of Visitors C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: First update concerns the Lone Star Rail. At the last GTAB meeting it was mentioned that the CAMPO Board has directed staff along with TxDOT and the Alamo Area Council of Government to go back and review the funding scenarios for Lone Star Rail and if Union Pacific really has pulled out and if the no build scenario is chosen then all of the CAMPO dollars would have been spent on environmental process and all of the San Antonio Council Government money would go back to San Antonio. There appears to be an inequity in funding of the initial environmental study if the no build scenario is chosen because of the Union Pacific position. The Board has called a special meeting, which will be held on Friday April 15, 2016, to discuss their ongoing position. By early June we should know where CAMPO stands on the funding, and we will know which direction Lone Star is going. Staff has the opportunity to really be involved the State Legislative process, from the TML prospective. Our Transportation Analyst — Nat Waggoner has been asked to serve on the TML Committee for Transportation Legislation Review. D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Bill Dryden, P. E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Mr. Milford spoke on this item. His presentation is at the end of these minutes Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F.Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on March 11, 2016 — Jana Kern Motion by Courtney second by Behrman to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of Lawrence, KS in the amount of $872,512.00 for pavement maintenance (hot in place recycling) —Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager. Polasek explained to the Board what this contract would entail. Motion by Courtney second by Bindas to award the contract to Cutler Repaving in the amount of $872,512.00. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) H. Review and possible recommendation of approval of Task Order SBE 16-002 for Citywide Sidewalk and Accessibility Improvements to Steger Bizzell of Georgetown, Texas in the amount of $96,672. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director and Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Waggoner gave an overview of the Task Order to the Board. Motion by Bindas second by Hesser to approve Task Order SBE 16-002 in the amount of $96,672.00. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) I. Consideration and possible adoption of staff recommendation for the appointment Troy Hellman to the Williams Drive Steering Committee. - Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director Polasek explained that this is NOT a Steering Committee but an Ad Hoc working group. The Board may chose anyone from the Board but Mr. Hellmann was chosen because he is a Real Estate Agent and works in this area. There will also be a representative from Planning & Zoning Commission. There will be about five (5) meetings in a nine (9) month period. Motion by Hesser second by Bindas to appoint Troy Hellmann to the Williams Drive Ad Hawk Working Group as the GTAB representative. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) Adjournment Motion by Hesser second by Courtney to adjourn meeting. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) Meeting ended at 11:15 1M Approved: on Pettitt - Chair Ems - Jana R. Kern — GTAB Board Liaison das— Secretary &TAB STATEMENT APRIL 08, 2016 AGENDA ITEM "Ell AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRE55 REPORT AND TIME LINES Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the &TAB board, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Milford I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens This is the 54th presentation by ACC members to the city council and/or the &TAB sinc January 14, 2014. These actions are in pursuit of the public participation rights of our citizens regarding use of our federal tax funds for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I In our March meeting statement we welcomed the four new members of this board and stressed ii of this board as the information gateway to the general public on transportation and airport issues. This board submits their recommendations to City Council for consideration and approval. We stressed that those recommendations should not be limited to single undisputed staff points of view. We are conf ident that the new members have been briefed on city's opon that the ACC's goal to close the airport. Of, course that assertion is not true. The only group that ever advocated that proposal was the now dismantled Airport Advisory Board, which it outlined in it's 2002 "Airport Closure Project". That report was premised on an abrurt closure of the airport. Which would have resulted r legal conflicts with federal grant requirements. Only after closure would any attempts be made to locate an alternative site at it costs to the taxpayers and the community. That report did not consider a smooth transon of one site to another such as was done in the Mueller to Bergstrom transfer of airport operations. The real estate value of existing airport property was not considered to pay all costs of a transfer of airport operations to a new location. No consideration was given that the a transfer of airport operations to a new site, could f ulf ill TxDOT's duty to establish a state Central Texas airport. The bill authorizing Tx[)ot to establish such an airport is HB 2522. It was passed by the 77 th Legislature and remains in force today. Ignoring the absurdity of the "Airport Closure Project" report, the city adopted it and it conclusion, that no relocation of i was possible under any condons. City leaders went further and made this nonsense study a part of the city's master plan wher it exists to this day. That absurd report retains such respect, by a city that prides itsel onquality, that no professional feasibility study for a superior, rural, zoned and protectel's site for airport operations transfer has been considered by this board or by the City Council. This failure to act may result in a dreadful and dangerous consequence for our city as the airport continues to expand. I The ACC has repeatedly requested this board to conduct open workshops for public input and discussions on airport issues. All these requests have been ignored. Last month we requested revised monthly financial reports that would show the city's total financial obligation for federal grants received, as debt for repayment. This includes the city's obligation for the federal funded airport control tower. We see no such revisions to those financial reports this month. Perhaps city staff can enlighten us with their presentations. New board members should ask for and be provided with updated versions of the TxDOT AVN document, Airport Project History. That document describes the local, state and federal costs of completed GTU grants and state f uncled routine annual maintenance program (RAMP) grants. Another important issue for workshop discussions is compliance with NEPA. All board members need a f irm understanding of this f ederal law and that non-compliance by the city, TxDOT and FAA is a root cause of ACC activity. In simplified terms, NEPA requires that prior to any federal funding action the federal agency involved must determine the extent of adverse impacts that could result from its implementation. The determination is made by preparation of an Environmental Impact 5tatement (EI5), unless an Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared that shows an EIS is not required. If the agency involved can demonstrate the proposed action f its wn an agency category, that has been shown over time not to produce adverse impacts, it can categorically exclude the action for NEPA reviews. Over r 37 years the city, TxDOT and FAA have relied on categorical exclusions on each individual grant in a systematic fashion that has transformed the once socially acceptable GTU to a public health and safety hazard while ignoring signcant public opposition and controversy. City staff presentation today regarding comments on the 25 -element, 1514&RGTN, grant exempes this pattern. Today, the Fuel Farm is presented as if it were a separate project rather than "only one" of the 25 -elements of that grant. This "segmenting" of the Fuel Farm element out of the grant f or an EA last yearieu of preparation of an EA for the entire 25 -element, 1514&1RGTN grant is central to our appeal to higher federal authores. The fact that Txl)OTAVN prepared a categorical exclusion for the entire 1514&RGTN grant, in lieu of preparation of an EIS, is unjust and is being appealed. A full workshop discussion on compliance with NEPA and other issues should i, I welcome any comments or questions.